Recent press coverage has again criticized the insurance industry of Critical Illness Insurance. The fundamental problem is that the claims of a serious illness is not as easy as for example the demand for a car or life insurance. With auto insurance, it is obvious when you not had an accident - the damage is there to be seen and repaired. And with life insurance, it is difficult to argue for the insurer that you are not dead!
The nature, allegations of serious illness is much more complex. Insurance companies must ensure that the validity of the claim for three major areas before casting:
It is clearly the interest of policyholders to ensure that medical diagnosis is correct - that rarely conflict between the insured and the insurance company on this issue. The other two fields, validation, when conflicts arise at times require.
With constant research and development in the medical field, sometimes, certain diseases in which divided the validation in a gray area - it can be argued that the disease is guaranteed and you can say it is not to be. Insurance companies are aware of these problems and often have to revise the wording of the policy to clarify the scope and eliminate the possibility of the dispute. However, conflicts are often sparks and believes if the customer is assured, but the insurer does not agree. This is illustrated by a case before the courts shortly. Mr. Hawkins is Staffordshire Scottish Provident under the terms of its policy of £ 400,000 cases of serious illness. believe in principle that their medical advisers, their illness is guaranteed, while Scottish Provident's medical advisors "do not agree. If Hawkins wins his case, the press is a picnic and health insurers will be more bad press have to suffer serious that not afford.
Another challenge is the last of the High Court relates to the problem when an insurance company believes that the applicant misled his original application. We believe that if the applicant is misleading or withheld information, this means that insurance wrong. High Court challenge to Thomas Welch concerns in north London, the Scottish Provident £ 206,800, which includes interest remain. The problem goes back to 2000, confirmed as several years after the onset of his illness policy, that Mr. Welch had testicular cancer. The insurer rejected the opposition, because "confidentiality agreement to say that Mr. Welch was not honest with his smoke. Confess have been smoking for life, but insist that he stopped for a long time in the past when asked insurance.
In this capacity, he said honestly Welch fill the request. We suspect that is the case, whether Mr. Welch answered specific questions about smoking. Most insurance companies to smoking than someone who has smoked or used to define nicotine products during the previous five years. If Mr. Welch smoking during these years he had the answer "yes" to these questions, and his insurance premium would be up to 65% more than it should be non-smokers have been named. We believe that his lawyers could argue that this is not to smoke while it is to forget about smoking only in the past, smoking was not inferior to his testicular cancer connection. Interesting question. We follow the case and you know the result.
Mr. Hawkins case illustrates the problems that occur when the insurance documents can define illness or inaccurate, if the technology to contradict a diagnosis of disease, which leaves room for medical experts. These two issues are completely out of control of the police in a very difficult time for them and their families, and we can understand their fears. The long-term answer may lie in improving the medical definition of politics. It is likely that this will lead to an increase in medical jargon as the man on the street would be hard to understand - but that does best, what will Mr. Hawkins crossings compared.
The test includes a clear warning to all that such requests must be 100% accurate and are made in good faith. We recognize that this is still room for controversy (and if Mr. Welch may be a case), but if an applicant does not complete the forms correctly, take a significant risk that any future application will be denied.
Rightly or wrongly, record releases assure hard, threw a business without a heavy heart. This confirms the widespread view that the insurer is not, and this particular view critical illness insurance. This view is supported by the fact that about 20-25% of critical illness claims are rejected (the rejection rate does not vary depending supported by insurance.) Is something that the insurance companies face - for customers and bad for the poor developing business.
It is a great shame. 06:01 women and a fifth man with a serious illness before the normal retirement age and therefore critical illness insurance can do much to protect the economies of those unfortunate enough to be diagnosed.
